About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chiu 4, San Francisco 4, Safeway 2, City 2, Us 2, Madam 1, David Chiu 1, Eir 1, Eric 1, Malcom 1, Campos 1, Sophie Maxwell 1, Tenant 1, Seoul 1, The City 1, Entire City 1, Kevin 1, Korea 1, Berry 1, Don 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    September 20, 2010
    1:00 - 1:30pm PDT  

1:00pm
1:01pm
1:02pm
1:03pm
1:04pm
1:05pm
1:06pm
1:07pm
but chair maxwell: welcome to lay and use. i am the chair, sophie maxwell, and i am joined by david chiu
1:08pm
and later eric mar. madam clerk? clerk somera: please turn off all cell phones. chair maxwell: i believe we do not have other reports today. madam clerk, i number one. clerk somera: mission bay north, blocks n3-n3a. >> what you have before you is a project that is located within mission bay north. i will give you the image so you can see where that is. we're talking about public infrastructure for blocks n3 and n3a, and that includes the
1:09pm
sidewalk as well. that is on king and berry and between fourth and fifth, and i will show you an example of the structure. the sidewalk on berry, from property line to property line, street trees, and street lights. the director of public works issued a notice determining that the project was completed and ready for acceptance and intended use. the department of planning has determined that it met the terms of the general plan, in the redevelopment agency determines the acceptance of the appurtenance and that they are consistent with the redevelopment plan. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. chair maxwell: thank you.
1:10pm
any public comment on this item? seeing none, this item is closed. colleagues, without objection. item number two. clerk somera: a construction agreement for 1150 ocean avenue, the construction of 26 inclusionary units. >> this is attached to an agreement between 1150 and the city. it is basically an affordable housing program. this was amended in is in the process of being amended, and it should be before you in a couple of weeks. if you remember a case that came down last fall, essentially, there was a state law that mandates that the city cannot set rental rates for a
1:11pm
development unless there are several exceptions. one of the exceptions is if there is a contract drafted, such as the one before you, between the city and the developer which states that the owner will provide on-site rental units. so this contract in front of you is essentially about the on site rental units, so doing this will enable them to get their funding immediately as well as exempt them from the nhawkins. chair maxwell: colleagues, comments or questions? all right, public comment on item number two. >> i have lived in san francisco for 50 years. ocean avenue borders the area where i have lived for the past
1:12pm
19 years, and i would like to speak out in favor of this item, but i also would like to produce some cautionary comments. previously, wrote there was a mass housing mixed use development on the ocean further up the street. district 7. korea long time now, the safeway store has been vacant, and they have not been successful in finding another tenant which serves the community. also, a blockbuster store that used to be across the street is still vacant and boarded up. and i think that the city officials need to be extra cautionary to make sure that this development does not end up the same way. it is kind of ironic that safeway pulled out of that development on ocean avenue, even though there was a safeway store nearby.
1:13pm
i think both of my neighbors have chosen that development on moderate better suited the neighborhood, but -- on monterey. they have not only been unsuccessful in finding a tenant, but maybe we should have examined that mixed use development on ocean a lot more closely in the past. it is really an eyesore to see on one corner the empty property that used to be safeway and directly across the street now is empty that used to be a blockbuster, so i think we need to be extra cautious in regards to this development to make sure that all of the neighbors are concerned. those unused properties, i think that the board of supervisors should seriously consider letting community people use those two vacant properties, even though they may not be able to pay very much
1:14pm
rent. i think having the community use those two big properties is a lot better than having them sit empty, especially the new one coming on board. not only does it need to be closely scrutinized, but i think if there is going to be any empty space there, it should be used for the community, even though the city or the developers may not be getting any ranch. thank you. chair maxwell: all right, next speaker, please. if anyone else would like to speak, please line up so we can go fast. >> i am on behalf of the avalon bay communities, the developer of 1150 ocean avenue. we want to come to an agreement so we can provide on-site inclusionary units, consistent with city policy to do as much as we can.
1:15pm
the reason it needs to be a resolution coming before you, until the amendments are enacted by this board in a month or two, the planning director does not yet have the authority for this agreement. this resolution simply gives the planning director the authority ahead of the ordinance being enacted. that is what supervisor chicks' sponsoring with the mayor. avalon day is very soon going to start construction. we need to get this agreement approved the head of the ordinance. we are available, as well as myself, for any questions you may have. chair maxwell: thank you. any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed.
1:16pm
item number three. clerk somera: item number three, to provide a minor encroachment fee waiver for affordable housing. chair maxwell: hearing from planning, hearing from office? public works? all right, public works. so why do we not skip this unemployed and go to the next item, so we will continue this item until the end of the meeting, and then we will go to item four. clerk somera: item number four, supporting existing area plan housing requirements. chair maxwell: so, supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: thank you,
1:17pm
madam chair, for your consideration, and thank you, colleagues. san francisco and the bay area faces enormous an extreme housing shortages in the coming years. it has been stated that san francisco, a city alone, ought to be producing over 31,000 units of housing over the seven- year period that we're in to ensure that as a city and as an area we can adequately deal with the needs of a residence in san francisco. in many of our area plants, we have included ratios of residential to commercial development in order to ensure that we are helping to promote appropriate development, and this particular resolution is here to really emphasize the fact that this is an important policy matter that as a city, we ought to adopt. no, this is a resolution that
1:18pm
does not specifically mention one area, but it does have something dealing with the project, there is right now in the van ness area, a specific requirement that the ratio of residential to commercial housing, when there is a new development, that development needs to occur at a ratio of residential to commercial, and that was not something that has been addressed by the planning department, and from my perspective, i wanted to make sure that we reiterated this principle and started a conversation on it. i am certainly sensitive to the fact that there is a proposal to build a hospital and not necessarily housing, but i think given the density of this neighborhood, given the fact that the van ness area has a lot of residential housing, given that, again, throughout the
1:19pm
city, i think we need to be very careful to balance and falls to the elements of a corporate development, i wanted to move this resolution forward in the context of our city consideration of the draft eir, which i know we are considering this thursday, so with that, i do see the director of planning here. i want to see if you have any initial comments. i also want to thank my colleague, supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor campos. >> with the planning department. i just wanted to go over the current situation about the van ness corridor. obviously, the intent of this is to encourage high-density housing. that was the intent from the very beginning, and it has been in place now for a number of years. there is a conditional use provision within the current code that allows a reduction that allows the planning commission to have a reduction in the requirement, and as you pointed out, it is required that
1:20pm
there be three square feet of housing built for every 1 foot of nonresidential, net new nonresidential space built, so the way that has been administered and the way it reads as any development that is not providing housing, we would subtract out the square footage from that requirement, and they would be required to build up to 3 square feet of housing for every net new occupied square foot of nonresidential space that is proposed to be built. and as you know, -- chair maxwell: just for the public, could you explain that a little bit more? can you kind of give us a better picture of it? >> sure. maybe by way of example. if the was a proposal to build a 1000 square foot office building -- supervisor chiu: using the
1:21pm
numbers for this project? >> miggy my staff has them. the idea is that there be a three to one -- in other words, 7 5% essentially note is what the code currently requires, but it allows you to attract up the square footage at, so in the case of cpmc, it would be subtracted from the overall requirement, subtracted from their proposed square footage in order to determine the requirement. in addition, there is a conditional use the allowance in the code today that allows the planning commission to reduce the requirement by 50% in also, it may be granted if a certain percentage of the on-site housing been retained as
1:22pm
permanently affordable, so there are a number of provisions in the current code that allows some reduction from the requirement. chair maxwell: all right, so after the building that is currently there is subtracted out -- >> right. chair maxwell: then you can build 50% less? >> yes. now, just to be clear, this would still result in a very large housing requirement. there has been discussion about doing less than that. but just to be clear about what the current code says, it allows you to subtract of the existing square footage from the proposed square footage, and the requirement would be based on that number. >> all right, and even with that, if we are using cpmc as an example, is still a large
1:23pm
number. >> yes. i am sorry. i do not have the number off of the top of my head. it is 1.1 6 million square feet. the hotel is 445,000 square feet. so we would subtract those, the 445 dozen square feet from the one put 1 6 million. -- the 445,000 square feet from the 1.6 million. supervisor chiu: excuse me? >> 1.16. you subtract of the 45 and get roughly 600,000, and times three, that would be it. supervisor chiu: 600,000 times three would be --
1:24pm
>> it is essentially net vs of negroes, and that number is still being determined. we're working with a hospital on the exact number. chair maxwell: what determines that? >> it is like a mechanical rooms and all of the space that cannot be occupied on a regular basis. again, that exact number has not been determined. >> would it be operating rooms? would it be -- >> freakin', we do not know yet. the corridor really did not anticipate a hospital building of this size, so we're having to look at that and to some interpretations. >> but is it the size, or is it the rooms that would be occupied that would be subject to the ordinance that we're talking about? >> i am sorry?
1:25pm
chair maxwell: are we talking about the rooms that would be occupied? i am wondering if it is the size of it, or is it about rumors that you're talking about, mechanical rooms that would not be occupied? >> it is the total size less all of those totally normally non occupied spaces. the total square footage of the building less the kind of non occupied space, like mechanical rooms, like all of those other spaces. chair maxwell: like what? >> like elevators and corridors. all of the space that one does not use as a function of the facility. we typically in the code, and this is something we are working on right now, so i do not have the exact number in front of me, but very typically in the code, in office but, we will subtract a certain amount of square footage that is devoted to that. chair maxwell: ok.
1:26pm
supervisor chiu: can you explain to us why these have not been done? i understand that the planning commission and your staff of known about this for some time, and i think it is really instructive for those of us who are thinking about what will be a product to consider this. you have a draft eir that you're waiting for comment on. is there a reason this issue has not been dealt with? >> we are looking at it. we have not made a determination one way or another. it is up to the board to either grant a conditional use, if they go that route, or to grant some other form of exemption that is being proposed, so we are simply looking at the numbers right now, and we have not made a determination one way or another. the eir, just like any eir, looks out the range of alternatives with the goal of minimizing it, and in terms of
1:27pm
ceqa, there is something that allows a reduction, and it is considered. now, depending on the final disposition if the commission would not grant that cu or something else was not granted, then we would have to look at the environmental review again. if we had to look at, for example, additional housing. if those were not to go forward, the environmental review would have to be looked at. supervisor chiu: from my perspective, i wanted to move this forward again, saying this is an issue we want to consider. what i would regret is going down the entire process without your staff, the commission, and others really looking into the need for housing and not considering this. a different question i have is my understanding is statute, it is very clear that nonresidential use it, if you're
1:28pm
calculating the ratio of residential to nonresidential news, it specifically includes medical news, seoul are planning code says that for this type of use, you do need to have that requirement, right? all right, and from what i can tell, there is no ambiguity about that. >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: i think those are the questions i have right now for planning. i appreciate what your staff is focused on. i just for this morning that they are really starting to look into this issue and started to engage on this, which i appreciate, and i hope as we move forward that this is something that we can resolve in a way that balances development for the entire city. chair maxwell: supervisor mar.
1:29pm
all right, why do we not open this up for public comment? i have one card. kevin. however, if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please lineup, and then from planning, i would ask you to come back and comment on some of what we have heard. thank you. >> kevin, with a coalition. thank you, supervisor chiu. i think those are some of the questions i had. the developer needs to be held to this. it is as simple as that. chair maxwell: malcom, don. >>

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)